Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
Trepo
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä viite 
  •   Etusivu
  • Trepo
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut
  • Näytä viite
  •   Etusivu
  • Trepo
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut
  • Näytä viite
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Interobserver reproducibility of perineural invasion of prostatic adenocarcinoma in needle biopsies

Egevad, Lars; Delahunt, Brett; Samaratunga, Hemamali; Tsuzuki, Toyonori; Olsson, Henrik; Ström, Peter; Lindskog, Cecilia; Häkkinen, Tomi; Kartasalo, Kimmo; Eklund, Martin; Ruusuvuori, Pekka (2021-02)

 
Avaa tiedosto
Egevad2021_Article_InterobserverReproducibilityOf.pdf (2.026Mt)
Lataukset: 



Egevad, Lars
Delahunt, Brett
Samaratunga, Hemamali
Tsuzuki, Toyonori
Olsson, Henrik
Ström, Peter
Lindskog, Cecilia
Häkkinen, Tomi
Kartasalo, Kimmo
Eklund, Martin
Ruusuvuori, Pekka
02 / 2021

VIRCHOWS ARCHIV
doi:10.1007/s00428-021-03039-z
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202105215279

Kuvaus

Peer reviewed
Tiivistelmä
Numerous studies have shown a correlation between perineural invasion (PNI) in prostate biopsies and outcome. The reporting of PNI varies widely in the literature. While the interobserver variability of prostate cancer grading has been studied extensively, less is known regarding the reproducibility of PNI. A total of 212 biopsy cores from a population-based screening trial were included in this study (106 with and 106 without PNI according to the original pathology reports). The glass slides were scanned and circulated among four pathologists with a special interest in urological pathology for assessment of PNI. Discordant cases were stained by immunohistochemistry for S-100 protein. PNI was diagnosed by all four observers in 34.0% of cases, while 41.5% were considered to be negative for PNI. In 24.5% of cases, there was a disagreement between the observers. The kappa for interobserver variability was 0.67–0.75 (mean 0.73). The observations from one participant were compared with data from the original reports, and a kappa for intraobserver variability of 0.87 was achieved. Based on immunohistochemical findings among discordant cases, 88.6% had PNI while 11.4% did not. The most common diagnostic pitfall was the presence of bundles of stroma or smooth muscle. It was noted in a few cases that collagenous micronodules could be mistaken for a nerve. The distance between cancer and nerve was another cause of disagreement. Although the results suggest that the reproducibility of PNI may be greater than that of prostate cancer grading, there is still a need for improvement and standardization.
Kokoelmat
  • TUNICRIS-julkaisut [23480]
Kalevantie 5
PL 617
33014 Tampereen yliopisto
oa[@]tuni.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Selaa kokoelmaa

TekijätNimekkeetTiedekunta (2019 -)Tiedekunta (- 2018)Tutkinto-ohjelmat ja opintosuunnatAvainsanatJulkaisuajatKokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy
Kalevantie 5
PL 617
33014 Tampereen yliopisto
oa[@]tuni.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste